RFC: New business modell for free software development
raph at r4f.org
Mon Sep 16 15:30:00 UTC 2002
On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 07:57:03PM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Raph <raph at r4f.org> writes:
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 02:49:26AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > > Let me be more precise: The GPSA can not be like the GPL and make a
> > > requirement about when you are allowed to use the software. The GPL
> > > explicitely does not restrict using the program. Any license that makes
> > > restrictions about using the program is unlike the GPL.
> > Freedom 0 : use of the piece of Software...
> > Do you all know the 4 freedoms of Free Software ?
> > See http://france.fsfeurope.org/libre.en.html
> Interesting, do _you_ know what freedom 0 is? Last time I check what
> the freedom 0 was it went something like this: the freedom to run the
> software, for /any/ purpose.
It is intended to avoid clauses like «you can use this piece of software
for non-profit usage only».
> Which would clearly make this GPSA license non-free if it has an
> clause when you are allowed to "use" the software.
You've got the point : the least restriction of the use of a piece of
software makes it clearly non-free.
Companies unable to make a living of Free Software are:
- companies using Free Software,
- and the ones who didn't realize that selling software is
different from selling potatoes.
Software isn't a good: it's knowledge.
So sharing software is like sharing knowledge, it shouldn't be
What you have to pay for isn't this type of general-purpose knowledge
(software available on the Internet), but specific one:
- specific developments
It isn't the first time that I hear about making yet another license for
Free Software, which would allow companies to make a living of Free
Software; each time, I've been upset by the lack of imagination of my
interlocutor: they all want to take some freedom away !
As is, Free Software allows to make a living of it, but software editor
is definetly not the way.
Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus.
More information about the Discussion